ITO, CHENNAI V. A.Radhakrishnan (Deceased) Rep by L/H Wife Smt.R.Vijayalakshmi, CHENNAI

ITA 397/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96482 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH; SH A
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL S M C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.397/MDS/2013 ' #$' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD II(3), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI A. RADHAKRISHNAN (DECEASED) REP.BY.L/H WIFE SMT. R. VIJAYALAKSHMI, 18/1, RAJA STREET, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : ADRPR 9965 K (&'/ APPELLANT) (()&'/ RESPONDENT) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT ()&' * + / RESPONDENT BY : SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE , # * -. / DATE OF HEARING : 20.10.2015 /0$ * -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2015 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VI, CHEN NAI, DATED 23.11.2012 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL IN COME AT ` 11,71,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE 2 I.T.A. NO.397/MDS/13 ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE FOR CUTTING AND SALE OF CASURINA. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY MATE RIAL TO SHOW THAT HE IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT ` 40,000/- AND THE BALANCE OF ` 11,31,000/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE DISCLOSED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1989-90 TO 1999-2000 AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, SOMETIMES BY SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN THE 12 TH YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME-TAX ACT, EACH AND EVERY YEAR IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. MOREOVER, THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 TO 1999-2000, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE HAS TO BE ULTIMATELY ADMITTED DURING THE YEAR CONSIDERATIO N. REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THA T THE ASSESSEE IS UNIFORMLY CLAIMING ` 10 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY CONST ANT INCOME CONTINUOUSLY FOR ALL EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY 3 I.T.A. NO.397/MDS/13 EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE CULTIVATION AND SALE OF A GRICULTURAL PRODUCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS ) OUGHT NOT HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DISCLOSIN G AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 TO 1999-200 0 CONTINUOUSLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED A CER TIFICATE FROM VILLAGE OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE L AND AND THE ESTIMATED INCOME RECEIVED FROM CULTIVATION. THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A COPY OF THE AD ANGAL EXTRACT TO ESTABLISH THE CULTIVATION. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE FOR REALIZATION OF SALE PROCEEDS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, TH E AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS SOLD LOCALLY, THEREFORE, NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE WAS AN EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE CULTIVATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALS O PRODUCED A COPY OF THE ADANGAL EXTRACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . APART FROM THAT, THE VILLAGE OFFICER HAS ALSO CERTIFIED THAT THE ASS ESSEE CULTIVATED THE LAND. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISBELIEVING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREAT ING THE SUM OF ` 11,31,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4 I.T.A. NO.397/MDS/13 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHE R SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDL Y, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF ` 11,71,000/- AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ` 40,000/- AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AND THE BALANCE OF ` 11,31,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF CULTIVATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ADANGAL EXTRACT MAINTAINED BY THE STATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES . IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A CERTIFICATE FRO M VILLAGE OFFICER. ADMITTEDLY, THE STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT MAINTAINS VILLAGE RECORD FOR CULTIVATION. THE CULTIVATION ACCOUNT OF THE VI LLAGE WOULD BE KNOWN AS ADANGAL REGISTER OR VILLAGE ACCOUNT NO. 2. THE CONCERNED VILLAGE OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO GO AROUND THE VILLAGE AND TAKE NOTE OF CULTIVATION MADE BY THE RESPECTIVE PER SONS IN THE LAND. THE CULTIVATION ACCOUNT HAS TO BE TAKEN WITH REFERE NCE TO EACH SURVEY NUMBER. THE CULTIVATION ACCOUNT TAKEN BY TH E VILLAGE OFFICER WOULD BE CROSS VERIFIED BY THE SENIOR OFFICER IN TA LUK OFFICE AT THE LEVEL OF DEPUTY TAHSILDAR AND THEREAFTER THE SAME W ILL BE PLACED BEFORE THE STATISTICS COMMITTEE HEADED BY TAHSILDAR SO AS TO ESTIMATE THE FOOD PRODUCTION OF THE TALUK. THEREFO RE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ADANGAL REGISTER IS A RECORD MAINTAINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING THE OFFICIA L DUTIES. THIS 5 I.T.A. NO.397/MDS/13 RECORD MAINTAINED IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING THE O FFICIAL DUTY CANNOT BE SO LIGHTLY IGNORED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFI CER. WHEN THE ADANGAL REGISTER ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS CULTIVATING THE LAND AND WHEN IT WAS FURTHER CERTIF IED BY THE CONCERNED VILLAGE OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN FACT CULTIVATING THE LAND A S CLAIMED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO CULTIVATION. 5. NOW COMING TO THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE WITH REGARD TO SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE FARMERS OF OUR COUNTRY HAS TO SELL THEIR PRODUC E IN UNREGULATED MARKET. NO PURCHASERS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WOULD BE ISSUING RECEIPTS FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. WHE N THE AGRICULTURE MARKET IS UNREGULATED IN THIS COUNTRY, EXPECTING DO CUMENTS FROM AGRICULTURISTS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, WHAT IS REQUIRED TO SEE IS WHETHER THE A SSESSEE IS CULTIVATING THE LAND OR NOT? ONCE THE ASSESSEE CUL TIVATES THE LAND AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE RE WAS ANY DROUGHT IN THE LOCALITY OR ENTIRE CROP WAS DAMAGED, THE PRESUMPTION WILL BE THAT THE ASSESSEE HARVESTED THE CROP AND RE CEIVED 6 I.T.A. NO.397/MDS/13 AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM CROP CULTIVATION. IN THIS CASE, THE VILLAGE OFFICER HAS CERTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVE D ` 11,71,000/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DOUB TING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 11,31,000/-. AS ALREADY OBSERVED, WHEN THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES ARE SOLD IN UNREGULA TED MARKET IN THIS COUNTRY, IT MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED TO BLAME THE AGRICULTURISTS FOR NOT PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THEIR AGRICULTU RAL PRODUCE OR SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IN THOS E CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TREATED THE ENTIRE SUM OF ` 11,31,000/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, THE 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. KRI. 7 I.T.A. NO.397/MDS/13 * (-34 54$- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 6- () /CIT(A)-VI, CHENNAI 4. , 6- /CIT-IV, CHENNAI 5. 4#7 (- /DR 6. 8' 9 /GF.